Hand to Hand Combat: 03 versus 017 in John 9:1-9

 John 9:1-9 is a memorable episode in the ministry of Christ, beginning John's account of the healing of the man born blind.  Let’s compare how two important majuscules – Codex Vaticanus (B/03) and Codex Cyprius (K/017) – present this segment of John’s Gospel.  First we will use NA27 as the basis of comparison.

Codex Vaticanus (B) compared to NA27

1 – no variants

2 – has οι after οι (+2)

2 – Ῥαββεί inistead of Ῥαββί (+1)

3 – no variants

4 – εργάζεσθε instead of εργάζεσθαι (+2, -1)

5 – no variants

6 – επέθηκεν instead of επέχρισεν (+3, - 4)

7 – does not include ουν και ενίψατο και ηλθεν (-22)

8 – no variants

9 – αλλ instead of αλλα (-1)

 Compared to NA27, Vaticanus has 8 non-original letters and is missing 28 original letters, for a total of 36 letters’ worth of corruption.

Codex Cyprius (K/017) compared to NA27

1 – παραγον instead of παραγων (+1, -1)

1 – γεννητης instead of γενητης (+1)

2 – no variants

3 – no variants

4 – εμε instead of ημας (+2, -3)

5 – no variants

6 – does not have αυτου (-5)

6 – has του τυφλου after οφθαλμους (+9)

7 – no variants

8 – no variants

9 – does not have ελεγον ουχι αλλα (-14)

Compared to NA27, Cyprius has 13 non-original letters and is missing 23 original letters, for a total of 36 letters’ worth of corruption.

Now let’s compare using the Byzantine Textform as the standard of comparison.

Codex Vaticanus (B) compared to RP-Byz

1 – no variants

2 – has οι after οι (+2)

2 – Ῥαββεί inistead of Ῥαββί (-1)

3 – no variants

4 – ημας instead of εμε (+3, -2)

4 – εργάζεσθε instead of εργάζεσθαι (+2, -1)

5 – no variants

6 – επέθηκεν instead of επέχρισεν (+3, - 4)

6 – has αυτου (+5)

6 – does not have του τυφλου after οφθαλμους (-9)

7 – ερμηνεύετε instead of ερμηνεύεται (+1, -2)

7 – does not include ουν και ενίψατο και ηλθεν (-22). A parableptic error.

8 – προσαίτης instead of τυφλος (+8 , -5 )

9 – does not have δε οτι (-5)

9 – ελεγον ουχι αλλ after αλλοι (+13)

Compared to Byz, 03 has 37 non-original letters, and is missing 51 original letters, for a total of 88 letters’ worth of corruption.

Codex Cyprius compared to RP Byz

1 – παραγον instead of παραγων (+1, -1)

2 – no variants

3 – no variants

4 – no variants

5 – no variants

6 – no variants

7 – no variants

8 – προσαίτης instead of τυφλος after οτι (+8, -5)

8 – προσαίτης instead of τυφλος after οτι (+8, -5)

9 – δε after εκεινος (+2)

Compared to Byz, 017 has 19 non-original letters and is missing 11 original letters, for a total of 30 letters of corruption.

In 9:4, ημας δει and πέμψαντός με both received D ratings from the UBS Committee; πέμψαντός ημας is supported by P66 P75 ﬡ* L W.

Whatever yardstick one employs, 017 is at least as accurate as 03 in this particular passage.  Rather than being dismissed as irrelevant, it should be given much more weight than it was given by those who compiled the NA/UBS compilation.